Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

Hi, don't look at me... i just got an email from a website in Ecuador (which i didn't believe) but followed the news to the BBC News site. So i guess it is somehow serious, but as i am new.... i wonder... what do you think?

Keyite, there have been too many studies that contradict that method of transmission with known couples where one is positive and the other negative. The mouth has too many enzymes that inhibit the transmission of the virus to infect. Since you had unprotected anal sex, that's where I would put the dollar as to where you contracted it.

Here's a suggestion -- let's try an avoid another acrimonious debate on this subject and agree on the following... While the risk of infection from oral sex seems to be infinitesimally small, it is not zero; therefore, it is theoretically possible.

I say this because this debate keeps coming up and no one is going to change the minds of the other side. If someone is sure that they contracted the virus via oral sex, then that is what the believe and no amount of debate will change it. Plus, it simply strikes me as overly paternalistic for one member to tell another how he got infected, when, in most cases, we have never met the other person and only know what they have offered up about themselves in these forums. Now, if someone asks for other opinions of how they got infected, that's a horse of a different color.

I got a problem of starting this thread with an article dated 2001 to be honest.....I certainly hope Ecuador has heard about Atripla, Bush's reelection or that the Red Sox Blew their chance at finally winning a world series*

Overall though I got to go with Mike on this:

Quote

While the risk of infection from oral sex seems to be infinitesimally small, it is not zero; therefore, it is theoretically possible.

Despite the news published on 2001, i got an email "warning everybody about higher risk of infections" just yesterday. It was also published in a Columbian (i think) website (14/may/07) like updated info, and that website took me to BBC. http://anodis.com/nota/9207.asp

The fact that it was published on 2001, says nothing against the real value of the info or the actual implications of its message. I thought that was clear..... Same like drugs discovered in 1996 does not mean they are useless now. It would be useful if you point the url where we can find the researches you talk about Rapidrod and the years. I am new, but i have to admit it really bothers me that everybody in Hiv world (starting from denialist and following with these sites) say things phrasing them as fact... and then everybody contradicts. I feel like if none would really know what happens and how it happens... and that bothers me.

I am not sure if you get the other point about this, the other point is that all this info is running widely spread in latin america, as a fact. I got same message about oral sex last week from an experienced HIV+ activist and when i said i would not use condoms they almost crucified me for "being near of killing someone", off course this might not be important for you... but i have to live with it. So despite all your comments i wonder if some of you have a real scientific website where one can find the support to the info you exposed so i can forward it to this three places (ecuadorian, columbian and bbc) to make them understand about their mistakes.

Don't we have a website where all updated research about hiv are published? if someone can give me the url address would be useful too. waiting the url addresses...

Juan Carlos

(who heard about atripla but does not know if it is available here... perhaps not, who heard about bush and is not much happy with him... and who doesn´t know who the red sox are.... if you got an url address about them, it might help too, huh?

Juan - in the field of HIV research and studies....6 years DOES make a huge difference on the validity of the informationou get so many people coming to this website looking for information

Modified - I understand your intentions and apologize if you took me as just being dismissive of you, but understand I see little benefit of trying to discuss this issue by using outdated data as a springboard.

Actually I see many reasons that the use of outdated data can be harmful - take your example of the drugs

Quote

Same like drugs discovered in 1996 does not mean they are useless now.

No - they are not useless - however if someone was to use only the information we have about drugs from 1996 as a model of what life is like for people with HIV and starting regimens today - I would hope you could appreciate that such outdated data can provide the wrong overall picture of what the current situation is for many who take current meds.

There has been a lot of research done since 2001 on the oral sex route and I think it might be more beneficial to use current information for a starting point to the discussion.

P.S. the Red Sox is the WORST most god awful and lazy bunch of baseball players known to man...they have lied, cheated and bribed their way through every game and no one in their right mind could ever say anything good about them.

Iggy, man... i understand what you say.... you don't have to convince me.... but help me to convince them and all your words means nothing without a scientific website that others can read to learn about their mistakes..... then i am still waiting for your urls guys.... i hope someone has some...... ?

Juan Carlos

(who expects urls more than just words.....and who thinks latin america is at least 6 years belated regarding Hiv info, and wants to start reducing this gap)

Juan....There are two aspects for prevention of the spread of HIV:1. Disclosure2. Safe sex

We all know that safe sex leaves a lot of room for debate. Basically you want to know if blow jobs are considered safe sex. I think the answer is: no, blow jobs are not safe sex but rather very low risk sex.

Research attempting to evaluate the risk of fellatio has often faced important limitations. For starters, very few people participating in studies only engaged in penile-oral sex. Many people also had unprotected vaginal or anal intercourse, making it very difficult to determine if unprotected fellatio is an "independent factor" associated with HIV transmission. There are also people who test positive for HIV and claim that unprotected fellatio was their only risky behavior. However, it's virtually impossible to know if these people are always reporting their sexual behavior accurately. (Study volunteers often have a difficult time admitting the truth about potentially embarrassing behavior to healthcare professionals conducting scientific studies.)...I suppose you know that there is no answer to your question about oral sex and it only leads to a long debate. Now, excuse me, I have a date with Mr. Hand.

I have to chime in and say that it concerns me when 6 year old research that seems to contradict all the major studies is used to caution us about what seems to be a minor risk activity at best.

Homophobic and anti-sex special interests (and the CDC has become far more conservative since the Bush Administration) have a vested interest in making people fear all sexual contact which actually works against HIV prevention efforts. It leads people to say in essence "It is all dangerous, so to hell with safer sex".

HIV is a very fragile virus. It must enter the blood stream to infect a person. The mouth is very resilient and has a chemical composition not condusive to the efficient transmission of HIV. The real risk involves penetrative anal and vaginal sex.

It is best not to take every cautionary tale and proclaim "The sky is falling, the sky is falling".

I am also amazed at how many people become born again prudes and want to restrict the activities of others. Yes, it is good to warn about the dangers of HIV, but stirring up fears over the smallest of risks seems to work against HIV prevention efforts.

Scare tactics did little to stop the use of illegal drugs, and it will do little to prevent HIV transmission. Only balanced and well reasoned HIV prevention tactics will really work. If you make the smaller risks seem to be more dangerous than they really are, you cast doubt on all prevention information.

It is ok, i didn't mean to sound rude (eventhough the comment of your hand debate didn't sound nice). I am just frustrated.....

This will sound silly but after 25 years i though that this basic things would be clear already.... . It is not about you all here. It is just that Here Drs and activists say several things opposite to the things i read on this forums, and sometimes i wonder what's the truth.... and then... i see in some topics none knows the answer for sure. And that disappoints me and makes me feel unsure.

I wish there would be a single place (UnAids website for instance) where all the research could be published, so we could go there and find updated info.... not hearing different theories all the time.

One more time it is not about you all here, it is just about how things are... and how they get me nervous as a newbie.

Juan Carlos (who is yet confused about oral sex but does not want to make another question to anyone today )

Seeing as there is still no definite yes or no about this issue, my take is if the "minor" or "theoretical" risk bothers you enough to feel concern, then just use a condom. If not protecting you/your partner from HIV, it will be protecting you/your partner from one or more of the other delightful STDs out there.

Incidentally, the vanilla condoms actually taste of vanilla......so I believe.

Melia

Logged

/\___/\ /\__/\(=' . '=) (=' . '=)(,,,_ ,,,)/ (,,,_ ,,,)/ Cats rule!

The difference between cats and dogs is that dogs come when called, whereas cats take a message and get back to you.

I am not sure what you are wanting? Definitive "NO RISK" and go suck away?? I don't think your going to find that answer here... If it causes you concern, use that rubber thingy and enjoy the pleasures of blowing a balloon....

Like Keyite, I believe I was infected via oral sex. For me, it's a present risk that means for me I have to disclose, but not so great that I have a problem with my bf going down on me.

There have been a number of debates on the forum about this, with lots of opinions put forward. At the end of the biggest thread (linked by Keyite above), there was an attempt to debate the science, but it didn't really take off - some of the papers people are talking about are given there. You can go through the abstracts on PubMed - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi by typing in the title of the paper.

You can also type "oral sex" into aidsmap.com, and get a reasonable overview of the news that has come out about this, some of the studies and get an idea about the confusion that surrounds this issue. Nothing in biology is binary - there is no "cannot" or "must" in my experience.

Btw, I think it's great that you want to make up your own mind on this, rather than subscribe to somebody else's orthodoxy.

Hopefully you have found some of the articles you want to read based on Matt post.

I just wanted to say that while I understand and applaud your desire to help educate yourself and others in your area of the world, I fear that you are setting yourself up for much frustration with this particular topic. As others have stated, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to definitively classify someone's infection as oral in nature because very people only participate in oral sex. Most of the studies that I've heard of over the years, show that poz/neg couples (heterosexual, by and large) that have unprotected oral sex, but protected vaginal/anal have not passed the virus to the neg partner. However, you can really use this to say, definitively, that it is impossible to do so. It comes down to educating onesself and determining one's own risk threshhold.

For instance, while I do believe that people have been infected by oral sex, I believe that it is such a rare occurrence that I am comfortable letting my negative partner go down on me. I waited until I had an undetectable viral load (not because of any science -- blood levels of virus don't correlate to levels in semen) and I would NEVER, NEVER cum in his mouth.

I hope you get as much info as you need for what you want to do, but this is an incredibly difficult topic to expect any hard and fast evidence.

Keyite, there have been too many studies that contradict that method of transmission with known couples where one is positive and the other negative. The mouth has too many enzymes that inhibit the transmission of the virus to infect. Since you had unprotected anal sex, that's where I would put the dollar as to where you contracted it.

Don't bother putting your dollar forward. In that other thread I several times over clarified that there were a number of negative test results in between my episodes of unprotected anal sex and my eventual positive result. I used to test several times a year and know precisely when I seroconverted so I can be very clear about possible routes of transmission. So once again: unless you believe it somehow took me eight years to develop antibodies then I was not infected as a consequence of unprotected anal sex.

It is indeed breathtakingly paternalistic, not to mention condescending and insulting to be lectured by *other* people on how *I* - and at least four other people on this board - were infected.

It is indeed breathtakingly paternalistic, not to mention condescending and insulting to be lectured by *other* people on how *I* - and at least four other people on this board - were infected.

How you claim you were infected, Key. You should also remember that those of us who have politely disagreed with you about this in past have always accepted that you and others are genuine in your belief about this.

Don't bother putting your dollar forward. In that other thread I several times over clarified that there were a number of negative test results in between my episodes of unprotected anal sex and my eventual positive result. I used to test several times a year and know precisely when I seroconverted so I can be very clear about possible routes of transmission. So once again: unless you believe it somehow took me eight years to develop antibodies then I was not infected as a consequence of unprotected anal sex.

It is indeed breathtakingly paternalistic, not to mention condescending and insulting to be lectured by *other* people on how *I* - and at least four other people on this board - were infected.

Keyite,

I don't think that anyone should imply that you are not being truthful. I don't know if anyone is doing that. I think that where the statistical odds are against the chances of something happening, people willl generally tend to doubt a person making such an assertion.

No one is saying that infection via oral sex is impossible, just highly unlikely.

I think that we all have bigger fish to fry after the HIV bell has been rung than to keep worrying about how it happened. If someone does in fact become infected via oral sex, that person is very unlucky.

We each have a right to tell our own story as we perceive it. Others have a right to express doubt. I just hope we can do this respectfully.

How you claim you were infected, Key. You should also remember that those of us who have politely disagreed with you about this in past have always accepted that you and others are genuine in your belief about this.

Nevertheless, the science just doesn't back this up.

MtD

Of course it's a claim. What else would it be? You don't have any more conclusive or scientific proof for how you were infected than I do. You have a theory, just like I do. Doesn't make it any less valid.

As Matt Mee unpicked in the other, older thread, the science does not appear to be clear cut or conclusive on this subject. It has not proved a link but neither has it disproved it. My personal hunch is that oral transmission is most often associated with an exceptionally high viral load on the part of the guy getting sucked. Astronomical viral loads are usually found on people who are very recently infected themselves and these people typically have no idea they are infected. How do you propose to put together a scientific study that could study these types of encounters? I'd love to know.

I think that where the statistical odds are against the chances of something happening, people willl generally tend to doubt a person making such an assertion.

Thing is, it isn't just me making this assertion. At least five of us on this board have stated in the course of a single thread that we believe we were infected via oral sex. Makes you wonder what the statistical odds are of that happening...

i think telling people that oral sex is dangerous for hiv was a huge huge mistake and really funded by the puritan moral religious right types why because... the real danger is passive anal sex, that is millions of times more dangerous, my friend just got out of med school and they taught him that if someone says they got hiv from oral sex and they never never never did anything anal etc they probably are lying and for the good of the patient, for example to make sure there arent other stds, best to not believe everything that person said, no oral sex puts an undue burden on everyone, for example, if many would have had tons of oral sex, if the glory holes would not have been shut down by the puritans and republicans then probably many would still be neg. because many would have had a sexuall outlet that is bascially safe...

same goes for sero sorting by neg guys.. now they realize that this is a huge mistake, front page this website this week, cause the most infectious time is the first weeks months after infection when person is sure they are still neg.

we were better off just knowing that being passive was the danger and not doing thatbut usa is so moralistic anti sex etc

HIV (and indeed hepatitis B, which is more infectious) can pose a small risk for both the active (person giving the oral stimulation) and receptive (person receiving oral stimulation) partner.

Transmission from an HIV positive receptive partner to an HIV negative active partner may occur when the active partner gets sexual fluid (semen or vaginal fluid) or blood (from menstruation or a wound somewhere in the genital or anal region) into a cut, sore, ulcer or area of inflammation somewhere in their mouth or throat. The linings of the mouth and throat are very resistant to viral infections such as HIV, so infection is unlikely if they are healthy.

Transmission from an HIV positive active partner to an HIV negative receptive partner is generally believed to be less common. This is because HIV it is normally only present in saliva in very low levels that are not sufficient to cause infection. The only risk in this scenario would be from bleeding wounds or gums in the HIV positive person’s mouth or on their lips, which may transfer blood onto the mucous membranes of the other person’s genitals or anus, or into any cuts or sores they may have. Hepatitis C can also be transmitted this way.

What is the risk of HIV transmission via oral sex?

The risk of HIV transmission from an infected partner through oral sex is much smaller than the risk of HIV transmission from anal or vaginal sex. Because of this, measuring the exact risk of HIV transmission as a result of oral sex is very difficult. In addition, since most sexually active individuals practice oral sex in addition to other forms of sex (such as vaginal and/or anal sex) when transmission occurs, it is difficult to determine whether or not it occurred as a result of oral sex or other more risky sexual activities. Finally, several co-factors can increase the risk of HIV transmission through oral sex, including oral ulcers and wounds, bleeding gums, genital sores, genital or oral piercings, and the presence of other STDs.

When scientists describe the risk of transmitting an infectious disease, like HIV, the term "theoretical risk" is often used. Very simply, "theoretical risk" means that passing an infection from one person to another is possible, even though there may not yet be any actual documented cases. "Theoretical risk" is not the same as likelihood. In other words, stating that HIV infection is "theoretically possible" does not necessarily mean it is likely to happen - only that it might. Documented risk, on the other hand, is used to describe transmission that has actually occurred, been investigated, and documented in the scientific literature.

Various scientific studies have been performed around the world to try and document and study instances of HIV transmission through oral sex. A programme in San Francisco studied 198 people, nearly all gay or bisexual men. The subjects stated that they had only had oral sex for a year, from six months preceding the six-month study to its end. 20 per cent of the study participants (39 people) reported performing oral sex on partners they knew to be HIV positive. 35 of those did not use a condom and 16 reported swallowing cum. No one became HIV positive during the study, although the small number of participants performing oral sex on HIV positive partners meant the researchers could only say that there was a less than 2.8 per cent chance of infection through oral sex over a year.1 In 2000, a different San Francisco study of gay men who had recently acquired HIV infection found that 7.8 per cent of these infections were attributed to oral sex.2 However, the results of the study have since been called into question due to the reliability of the participants' data.

In June 2002, a study conducted amongst 135 HIV negative Spanish heterosexuals, who were in a sexual relationship with a person who was HIV positive, reported that over 19,000 instances of unprotected oral sex had not led to any cases of HIV transmission.3 The study also looked at contributing factors that could affect the potential transmission of HIV through oral sex. They monitored viral load and asked questions such as whether ejaculation in the mouth occurred and how good oral health was. Amongst HIV positive men, 34 per cent had ejaculated into the mouths of their partners. Viral load levels were available for 60 people in the study, 10 per cent of whom had levels over 10,000 copies. Nearly 16 per cent of the HIV positive people had CD4 counts below 200. The study, conducted over a ten year period between 1990 and 2000, adds to the growing number of studies which suggest varying levels of risk of HIV transmission from oral sex when compared to anal or vaginal intercourse.

At the 4th International Oral AIDS Conference held in South Africa, the risk of transmission through oral sex was estimated to be approximately 0.04 per cent per contact.4 This percentage figure is a lot lower than the two American figures, because this figure is a risk per contact percentage, whereas the other figures are percentage risks over much longer time periods. Oral sex is still regarded as a low-risk sexual activity in terms of HIV transmission, but only when more work is done will we be clearer as to the risks of oral sex.

Rapid Rod... i find strange and out of place that you take those links to support your ideas when those articles were published in 2001 same like my first article. I think it was clearly stated duyring first posts that for most of you a research done six years ago is not valid. Plus, SCIENTIFIC SITES i am referring about oficial sites where Universities or scientific organisations publish their results after approved worldwide by UN/Red Cross/Medical congresses or something like that. Not the answers of K Dr or other websites publishing what they read/heard somewhere else (what i just did at the beginning).. this also includes your post fondeveau, sorry. I hope the concept of scientific site is clear now. well....we are just where we started.

I find it risky that we all believe in what we read somewhere on internet, and so far none has pointed an official scientific site where to get the info. I guess we all should look for more specific and specialised sources of information cause this all lead us to missunderstandings and risks.

To me it is i think i have found an answer. NONE IS SURE, NOR HAVE SCIENTIFIC PROVES FOR THEIR STATEMENTS. THEREFORE NONE IS RIGHT NOR WRONG ABOUT THIS.

Still with it, i take Keyite comment about high viral loads in newly infected as a very logical comment.

And i think infections coming from oral sex are possible, not so common but possible. The level of risk is up to each on of you to believe since there is NO scientific information updated about this. (that's a preview of my theory) Period.

I don't see any more contributions possibles to this threat more than your personal attacks, which are unacceptable and hijacking the purpose of this question .... so i would like to ask goderators to lock this threat (until some new scientific research about this matter are published).

Meanwhile i express my respect to all of you and your personal stories of infection, i have no right to judge it true or false (and none has that right) so i just listen and learn to avoid possible risks in my and other's future .

With great respect nobody has personally attacked anyone as far as I can see. When you've been around these forums longer you learn to spot a personal attack. This, by our standards, at least has been most decorous.

Well,... thats your standard and does not have to be mine. I found some posts and answers a bit agressive. Perhaps i am wrong, but still... there is nothing new and scientific being posted and this is becoming just a circle, so lets lock it.

The overwhealming body of data demonstrates that HIV transmission via oral sex is extremely unlikely. The one bit of data cited by the original poster does not outweigh all the other data I and others have reviewed. No physician that I know (and I work in a hospital) believes that HIV transmission through oral sex is very likely. Some physicians I know believe that it would be nearly impossible.

That said, I don't think this is a debate any of us is going to win here. On the one hand we have a large body of scientific data. On the other we have compelling anecdotal accounts that contradict the scientific data. Scientific data is far more reliable than anecdotal accounts, but try convincing a person that he or she did not experience what they are certain in their own minds actually occurred.

I tend to rely on the more reliable scientific data. I also tend to discount dramatically stated cautionary tales. If you really want to prevent HIV transmission concentrate on the absolutely certain modes of transmission that can be prevented with condoms. Those being penetrative anal and vaginal sex. All this energy spent on making people afraid of oral sex seems like time wasted when we know that nearly all other cases are not transmitted that way.

The trend in all science on HIV transmission has been to lower the rate of HIV cases attributable to an oral route of infection. The biology is not in favour of this being a common, or even uncommon, route at a population level.

It is one of the great transmission controversies, but public health wise, paying attention to it is neither here nor there. Better condoms for fucking, yes, or a decent microbicide, yes, both big public health concerns. It's kinda tough on the very few souls who gotta guy with a millions-high viral load off by deep throating him and were genetically susceptible to the virus.

Whenever you insist that there must be a black or white answer to a question, you set yourself for disappointment, because rarely is life so simple. When I read this post, I am taken by your position Juan, that since there is no definitive proof, we just need to ignore what we do know. Nobody claimed you were lying about your route of infection, just that the science does not support your claim. If anyone in this post seems defensive, it appears to be you.

What I read in this post is you want validation that you became infected through oral sex and that is not something we can provide, because we are not here to judge you. Personally I do not care how you got HIV, but I do care when you start to insist that you got infected, through a route that is generally not recognized nor supported, because we also have a duty to our general readers.

This site prides itself on our scholars like Newt and we only post information that we know to be true and why should we scare untold thousands, who may read this site, by telling them you can get HIV from oral sex, when we know that to be untrue? I suggest you try and separate your quest for knowledge from your quest for whatever redemption you believe you may need.

I believe you came into this discussion already knowing your answer and you are just miffed because you could not get everyone to agree with your comments. Your reaction suggest someone who is not so much seeking the real truth, but rather validation.

i think infections coming from oral sex are possible, not so common but possible. The level of risk is up to each one of you to believe since there is NO definitive scientific answer/position about this.

I find it clear that we all have a mindset on what we base our beliefs.. for some people there has been enough said about the no risk, for others there has been enough said about the possible risk. Possible meaning low but real risk. I personally learnt a lot, about the two trends, the difference between facts and comments, and about the need of finding reliable sources of info, not simple websites. And i didn't get confuse

thank you for an orally exciting day

Juan Carlos (who has been at work not selling but reading this thread while his co worker sold 6 times)

Whenever you insist that there must be a black or white answer to a question, you set yourself for disappointment, because rarely is life so simple.

Quote

This site prides itself on our scholars like Newt and we only post information that we know to be true and why should we scare untold thousands, who may read this site, by telling them you can get HIV from oral sex, when we know that to be untrue?

Killfolle, I agree with the first quote, but then you go on to make a blatant black and white statement, and you back youself up with Newt's post who I think made a fair post and linked to the cdc who directly contradict you.

In another thread you spoke about informed consent, and I couldn't agree with you more. The 'untold thousands' should make an informed decision to the level of risk they are willing to accept. If you make this issue into a black and white issue you've taken that away from them. The fireworks that go off everytime this topic comes up speaks directly to how grey the issue can be.

And those of you who say stuff like, 'I believe YOU believe that, etc.' geez just come out and say you think the person is lying, or don't say anything at all.

brian (who is crazy to post in this thread...but it's late and I don't have to work tomorrow

Below is a PDF file of one of the best scientific articles available on the subject of oral transmission. It was written in 2006 and is a review of several studies.

Ann

Abstract:

Quote

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and many other viruses can be isolated in blood and body fluids, including saliva, and can be transmitted by genital–genital and especially anal–genital sexual activity. The risk of transmission of HIV via oral sexual practices is very low. Unlike other mucosal areas of the body, the oral cavity appears to be an extremely uncommon transmission route for HIV. We present a review of available evidence on the oral–genital transmission of HIV and analyse the factors that act to protect oral tissues from infection, thereby reducing the risk of HIV transmission by oral sex. Among these factors we highlight the levels of HIV RNA in saliva, presence of fewer CD4+ target cells, presence of IgA antibodies in saliva, presence of other infections in the oral cavity and the endogenous salivary antiviral factors lysozyme, defensins, thrombospondin and secretory leucocyte protease inhibitor (SLPI).

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Iggy....... NO, i am not "lost in translation". The CDC site says a clear YES regarding Hiv infection through oral sex. And the other says a clear "perhaps but no often". Ann, great file!!! University Complutense of Madrid, huh? good scientific source, thanks. The only thing is that this file is not a research itself, but an article remarking facts of several researches done years ago (since 1993 until now). It is not a problem to me but i wanted to underline that, due to some members expressing their lack of confidence about researches done six or more years ago.

it is extremely difficult to estimate the precise risk associated with oral exposure because most individuals have various sexual behaviours so that whether the route was oral, vaginal or anal cannot easily be established. Active oral–genital contact (i.e. performance of fellatio) could be expected to carry a higher risk of HIV acquisition compared with passive contact (i.e. receipt of fellatio) because of a series of possible cofactors, such as the presence of oral and/or genital ulcers, gingival bleeding (gingivitis or periodontitis) or the presence of other infections in the oral cavity (Table 1; Scully and Porter, 2000). Extract of the article.

To me it is clear that this research agrees with my theory. Infection through oral can happen... but not very often. Could be once every 10k cases or once every 1000Million cases. That part remains unstablished because so far all research says "it could happen but we didn't do our research well, so we are not sure".

In the mean time, someone could also send this file to the CDC, perhaps they can update their way of thinking

I will re read the whole thread cause this have been a very good discussion. Eventhough my answer have not changed yet. I still agree with all of you (all those saying yes it happens and no it does not) because despite our good statements, and our good parlamentary capabilities... oficial scientific articles exposed (only three so far) say the risk is there but science is not sure of how low it is. It is low, but real. I don't see another posible answer so far. I personally don't feel confortable saying "no risk" after reading this all, I prefer saying "very low risk... and uncommon way of infection". Off course you all can phrase it as you want to.

I will forward this site to the columbian, bbc and ecuadorian sites (eventhough i already sent a link to this thread to their webmaster) that originated this thread. have a good day.

Juan Carlos (feeling today wiser than yesterday)

PD: Ann, could you post the url address where you got this article from? I am sure someone will ask me.

The reason I didn't post a link is because unless you have a subscription to an online scientific journal database, you won't be able to access it. It's available via subscription in quite a few different places though, just Google the paper's title.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Juan, I am so sorry for my confusion and I promise to never use tabs in my browser, when answering posts. I totally confused two threads in my responses, but unlike before, I can no longer edit my post, so there it remains as a testament to my confusion. I hope there is no harm done and I just want to offer the following.

I do not believe that anyone on this site has ever stated that oral sex carries NO risk, because an infection is always a possibility and because of that we term oral sex LOW risk. Maybe it seems like we are splitting hairs, but do you think the average reader truly understands the difference, in scientific terms, between a risk, theoretical risk, probability, possibility, etc. I do not think we mislead anyone by stating that oral sex is low risk, as that is what all of our scientific studies seem to validate. But there is more to the message that oral sex is low risk and that is to not brand all pozzies as disease ridden carriers or to scare people from engaging in what we know to be a low risk activity.

I should have been more clear in this connection, because it is a fine line that we walk when we try to balance our own needs, against our moral compass. For me, what is always paramount is that I disclose to any sexual parties prior to any activity. That way, everyone is on the same page and you can negotiate any aspects, in advance, rather than stopping mid-action, to discuss potential risks. Because of the history of HIV in America, I am very protective of our community, as I know many pozzies who share the same protective views.

That is why I said that few things are black/white and defining risk activities has to be about the toughest job around. I have been in the studies and know that some participants lied about their exposure risks, and the researchers knew that as well, but you have to go with the data that you have. Many scientific studies that involve humans are going to be flawed because we are. We do the best with what we have and sometimes you need to step back and see an issue as part of a bigger picture.

Once again, sorry, my browser made me do it. That's my story and I am sticking to it.

I am really sick of your tone. Before you accuse anyone else of having a less than friendly demeanor on this website, examine some of the sarcasm in your words such as \"Huh?\" You seem to dismiss everyone else and talk down to them. Many of the people posting herea are just stating an opinion. They believe, and I agree, that taking a \"the sky is falling attitude\" with the remote possibility of contracting HIV through oral sex is damaging to people living with challenges of this disease. I have a feeling you speak through the anger of the newly infected. But let\'s be frank here. You got it through your own carelessness. Most of us here were careless, trusting, self destructive, or at the wrong place at the wrong time. It little matters now. What does matter is that hysteria like the one you are trying to stir up here only cause further damage to those already living with it, and does little to stop the spread of this disease by not addressing the 99.999999999999999999999999999 percentage route of actual transmission. Here is the conclusion. Yes, you can theoretically acquire HIV through oral sex, but you cannnot prove it, just like you cannot prove the existence or non existence of GOD. I would love to see a researcher try to conduct experiments on the possibility. However it is impossible, given the ethical guidelines and the complexity of human behavior.

As long as this disease continues to be stigmatized, there will always be the possibility of some not being straight forward on how they contracted it. With that said, information is the best weapon against making any sort of dent in the infection rate. Information on the untheoretical reality of vaginal, anal, IV needle sharing and mother to child transmission (sorry if I left anyone out). That is where we need to focus our energy on period!

So some people may have gotten this through oral sex. Life sucks and so does this disease. Pun intended.